On 30/01/2011, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:45:11PM +0100, Herv? W. wrote:
>> On 29 January 2011 19:29, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 06:36:00PM +0100, Herv? W. wrote:
>> >> On 29 January 2011 17:43, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>>>> >> > Also file maintainers can commit to videolan and mans can then
>> >> > review,change
>> >> > and pull as he sees fit. If you are lazy _this_ really is the way to
>> >> > go :)
>> >>
>> >> I don't think a stable repo on videolan and a more-stable repo on
>> >> ffmpeg is wise. I think either 1 repo, or 2 repos that are exact
>> >> mirrors of eachother would be better.
>> >
>> > nah, you misunderstood, iam speaking of specific formating and
>> > "ohh my eyes a bleeding" requirements not stability.
>> >
>> > broken code is NOT welcome in the videolan repo.
>> > but if someone has an issue with the existing (quite strict) whitespace
>> > formating rules, but the code is otherwise fine, its welcome in videolan
>> > also just because some code has mplayer ancestry does not exclude it
>> > from
>> > consideration nor if it comes from anywhere else. For me the actual code
>> > matters not how its formatted or where its from.
>> > And i will pull all imrpovments mans does so its not that his tree would
>> > have any better formated code, just less code.
>>>> So basically, you'd like it to remain the way it is now.
>> Dont put words in my mouth
>> Iam chatting with ben about a compromis solution, but he has no time today.
More private communication? isn't that how the split happened in the
first place? Are you sure you wouldn't want to discuss that with 1 or
2 more people (not me, I'm nobody), perhaps Reimar if he has a little
time?
> here above i just meant the current situation i didnt mean
> that is how i would like it to stay. But its possible it will stay that way
> if the compromise fails.
Aha. Well I didn't particularly wanted to discuss the current
situation. Or the past situation. I wanted to discuss how we could go
forward. I guess you're doing that with Ben.
> I prefer a single merged repo
Oh good.
Good luck with your private discussions. Please let us know (you or
Ben) if that's making any progress or if it fails.
-V